Search results

The use of random assignment can be effective and appropriate in the evaluation of programmes that serve children in schools. Because random assignment creates pre‐treatment equality between treatment and control groups, this methodology is particularly effective for understanding the impact of an intervention. Contemporary research on educational experiments has tended to focus on programme results rather than on their origin or implementation. While programme results are important, they provide little guidance to those interested in designing and implementing programme evaluations that use random assignment. This article shares the practical lessons learned from three educational experiments with researchers and practitioners interested in pursuing evaluations that use random assignment.

Academically focused tutoring programmes for young children have been promoted widely in the US in various forms as promising strategies for improving academic performance, particularly in reading and mathematics. A body of evidence shows the benefits of tutoring provided by certified, paid professionals; however, the evidence is less clear for tutoring programmes staffed by adult volunteers or college students. In this article, we describe a relatively large‐scale university‐based programme that creates tutoring partnerships between college‐aged volunteers and students from surrounding elementary schools. We used a randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of this programme for 196 students from 11 elementary schools over one school year, focusing on academic grades and standardised test scores, confidence in academic ability, motivation and school attendance. We discuss the null findings in order to inform the conditions under which student support programmes can be successful.

The paper's purpose is to participate in a debate about the role of randomised controlled trials in evaluation of preventive interventions for children.

The paper is a response to critiques on Stewart‐Brown et al. published in the Journal of Children's Services, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 228–35.

Randomised controlled trials are likely to be at their best in the evaluation of interventions that do not require the active engagement and personal development of participants. The latter may depend on a series of interventions and events that potentiate each other over time. Randomised controlled trials are likely to be least valuable in evaluating universal level interventions that aim to change population norms. Because of the challenges involved in conducting RCTs in this setting they cannot be relied upon to give accurate estimates of programme effect and therefore do not deserve the privileged position that has been accorded them in the hierarchy of evidence.

This paper develops the argument that the privileged position of RCTs in the evidence hierarchy of preventive services for children is undeserved.

The article's purpose is to critique a paper (Stewart‐Brown et al., 2011) in a previous issue of the Journal of Children's Services, which challenges the utility of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effectiveness of preventive interventions for children.

The article is a critical reflection on the primary issue discussed by Stewart‐Brown et al. namely that RCTs do not work well in the evaluation of complex social interventions.

The author finds fault with several of the claims made in the earlier essay and concludes that RCTs remain the most credible research methodology for estimating programme impacts. It is certainly true that RCTs do not tell us everything about programmes and implementation. However, if researchers are attempting to assess whether social interventions have the intended measured impact on their participants, then RCTs do indeed represent the “gold standard” research design.

The article is a re‐assertion of the value of RCTs in research on preventive interventions in children's services.

This research provides accounting-ethics authors and administrators with a benchmark for accounting-ethics research. While Bernardi and Bean (2010) considered publications in business-ethics and accounting’s top-40 journals this study considers research in eight accounting-ethics and public-interest journals, as well as, 34 business-ethics journals. We analyzed the contents of our 42 journals for the 25-year period between 1991 through 2015. This research documents the continued growth (Bernardi & Bean, 2007) of accounting-ethics research in both accounting-ethics and business-ethics journals. We provide data on the top-10 ethics authors in each doctoral year group, the top-50 ethics authors over the most recent 10, 20, and 25 years, and a distribution among ethics scholars for these periods. For the 25-year timeframe, our data indicate that only 665 (274) of the 5,125 accounting PhDs/DBAs (13.0% and 5.4% respectively) in Canada and the United States had authored or co-authored one (more than one) ethics article.